scf_list_risks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions what fields are returned, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering. This is insufficient for a mutationless list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and key return values. No redundancy or wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters (org_id required, pagination, status filter) and no output schema. The description covers purpose and return fields but omits pagination behavior and filtering effects. It is minimally complete for a list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of returned fields adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain any parameters (like pagination or filtering). Baseline 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists risk assessments in the risk register and specifies the returned fields (likelihood, impact, treatment status, linked controls). This distinguishes it from siblings like scf_get_risk (single risk) and scf_list_custom_risks (custom risks), providing a specific verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_get_risk or scf_list_custom_risks. Usage context is implied by the 'list' verb, but no guidance on filtering or when not to use is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.